We will really never know. I am sure that they made some effort to find out and there always seems to be a willing insider who spills the beans, to their great discomfort. I don't beleive in mass "nervous breakdowns". It was a reaction to a beautiful, very young, popular woman's death. Whether that ruffles the feathers of the stiff upper lip set, too bad. It happened. The 10th Anniversary Memorial was broadcast throughtout the world. If nobody was interested and I mean a great many were, obviously, they wouldn't have done it. These stations are commercial enterprizes. They had to have had a big audience. The film also garnered it share of viewers. Long after the "hysteria". Perhaps, they really didn't care. They did, of course, care about their grandson, that goes without saying, but they wanted this torn out of their side. Interesting, now they have joined the parade.

I need to watch that movie. I finally watched Notes on a Scandal last night, and I'm surprised that any performance last year could have beaten out Judi Dench for the Oscar. Helen Mirren must have given the best performance ever, or else the Oscar was based on something other than acting ability.

..... there always seems to be a willing insider who spills the beans, to their great discomfort.

Experience has proved to me, that they are safe in saying an unnamed source/friend/servant etc because they are rarely challenged. They also cover themselves by telling everyone it is based on real events, in reality 99.99% of the time, it is based on the imagination of the writer, with one or two 'facts'.

It was a reaction to a beautiful, very young, popular woman's death. Whether that ruffles the feathers of the stiff upper lip set, too bad. It happened.

If it causes the downfall of the 1000 year old British monarchy then that would be a grave loss not easily replaceable.

__________________"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."

I cannot imagine that the whole monarchy will fall, because a 36 year old woman, died in a terrible accident and the world mourned. Life goes on. If the monarchy is built on such weak and shifting sands it won't be much of a loss. If it has value and is strong and the people of England wish them to be there it will stay. Diana's death and popularity will not change that. There seems to be this idea that, by some supernatural power, the Princess will destroy the monarchy. Ridiculous. She is gone. They are here. As I am not a British citizen, how I feel about the retention of the monarchy has little value. If the majority of the good citizens of Great Britain want to continue this style of government, it is for them to decide. Why would anyone think Diana's ghost will destory them?

It is hardly 'secret information' and it is not only personal knowledge or experience of the press or 'writers' using only a part of the 'story', based on an unnamed source.

Look at this film with a little logic - HM is supposedly up in the hills, her vehicle has broken down, she wades up a bank and then sits crying until she notices a 14 pointer, which she shoo's away. How romantic... how humane.... then apply logic. If she was alone, what insider could know what happened and if HM had broken down on the estate anywhere remotely close to the guns, the first thing anyone would have done, was to notify the Gillies out with the shooting party, to ensure that no accidents could happen!

Look at the scenes of Charles telling his 'man' to ring Blair, the phone calls that were supposed to have happened, who said what, where and when. Logic says that IF any of that happened, everyone concerned would have ensured they could not be overheard.

In Campbells book and on all the interviews he has done to promote it, he has stated unequivocally, that it was not (as portrayed in the film and many press reports) he who coined the pp phrase.

Read any statements that have been put out by celebrities, to refute stories coming from unnamed/close friends/sources.

You never know when you have the truth or it is embelished. Yes, I am sure there is license here, but there are also several books dealing with the death of Diana, they cannot all contain totally false statements, otherwise there would have been libel suits. Ghillies may talk, too. The faceless servants seem to talk. I have seen that for the right buck almost anyone will talk.

Location: Between the first and second floor of the Eiffel Tower, France

Posts: 2,680

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skydragon

It is hardly 'secret information' and it is not only personal knowledge or experience of the press or 'writers' using only a part of the 'story', based on an unnamed source.

Look at this film with a little logic - HM is supposedly up in the hills, her vehicle has broken down, she wades up a bank and then sits crying until she notices a 14 pointer, which she shoo's away. How romantic... how humane.... then apply logic. If she was alone, what insider could know what happened and if HM had broken down on the estate anywhere remotely close to the guns, the first thing anyone would have done, was to notify the Gillies out with the shooting party, to ensure that no accidents could happen!

Look at the scenes of Charles telling his 'man' to ring Blair, the phone calls that were supposed to have happened, who said what, where and when. Logic says that IF any of that happened, everyone concerned would have ensured they could not be overheard.

In Campbells book and on all the interviews he has done to promote it, he has stated unequivocally, that it was not (as portrayed in the film and many press reports) he who coined the pp phrase.

Read any statements that have been put out by celebrities, to refute stories coming from unnamed/close friends/sources.

Well of course we can't prove it and I don't believe everything in that film like the details you mentionned, but I believe in the feelings and emotions Stephen Frears wanted to put in this movie. The thing with the car breaking down is just to symbolize that the Queen doesn't cry in front of everybody, she needs to be alone. And it also shows the humanity in her.

You never know when you have the truth or it is embelished. Yes, I am sure there is license here, but there are also several books dealing with the death of Diana, they cannot all contain totally false statements, otherwise there would have been libel suits. Ghillies may talk, too. The faceless servants seem to talk. I have seen that for the right buck almost anyone will talk.

We all know, I believe that no book written about the death of Diana could be 100% accurate. IF Charles or a member of his family wrote a book, themselves, detailing exactly what they did and how they felt, that would be one thing. There is not such a book so all you have is the authors view of what might or might not have happened or been said. The trouble with the Diana books is they all seem to rely on one another for their 'facts', although I would be the first to admit I have not read them all. Friends who have read a variety all seem to think such and such a 'story' was written in someone elses book before the book they are reading it in.
As you know, it is as rare as rocking horse sh*t for members of the RF to sue for libel. Just as well or they would forever be in the courts.

With reference to the shooting incident, there were Gillies (taken from the Scottish Gaelic word Gille, Ghillies are a type of Brogue) out with the shooting party (if one even took place), they would have been contacted to ensure that shooting within that area stopped, however, the film clearly showed that HM was on her own and that shooting continued, so there were not any Gillies to 'talk' and the scene was not only invented but inaccurate.

I cannot imagine that the whole monarchy will fall, because a 36 year old woman, died in a terrible accident and the world mourned.

I did not say that Diana would destroy the monarchy but reactions such as the one to her death could well cause the downfall of the monarchy because it involved a lot of hatred and anger towards the Royal Family. Mass anger and hatred towards the royal family always pose a danger to the institution especially if it causes a longterm downfall in the reputation of the persons that are the target of this fury - the queen first as the present monarch but secondly Charles as the future monarch.

__________________"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."

Well, Ysbel, if that is what will take to take down the monarchy, it still has to be what a majority of people in Great Britain want. That's how, I suppose it works. I just don't think a bunch of angry people will appear at the palace with pitchforks. This isn't the French Revolution. If it happens, it will happen, by the electorate.

I just don't think a bunch of angry people will appear at the palace with pitchforks.

There will be no need for pitchforks to overturn a monarchy nor the majority of an electorate, I'm afraid. All it needs is a small vocal minority who are against the monarchy and a larger public that may still see value in the institution but for whom the situation with Diana caused them to stop caring about the Royal Family so that they are too disinterested to speak out against the vocal minority when time to speak up has come.

Then when the monarchy is gone; it is rather too late to bring it back if they change their minds.

__________________"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."

First of all, how can that occur. It seems to me they will not be sent packing unless a majority objects. And, if, a majority, just don't care, as you alledge, then they are in disfavor and that will be that. I know you have an unwritten constitution, but losing the rights somewhat guaranteed in this would be far more devastating than losing the RF. They are just icing, IMHO, not the cake. And all this because of one young Princess and her death. Seems unlikely.

You are definitely not the only person on the planet, a great many people, not on these forums, think it is laughably inaccurate and it worries them that royalty 'fans' could mistake it for anything other than a work of fiction.

Looking at it from it being an accurate portrayal of actual events, I suppose it might be close to what happened (with a few small embellishments here and there maybe)...But I simply look at it from how Her Majesty might have felt as a human being...it must have been embarrassing and gut wrenching to have such an event of her reign/life being exploited for profit and public nitpicking.

If you look at the history of the Royal Family, they have been an integral part of British society for 1000 years and has served as a unifying force to the British people giving them an identify on the world stage.

It is my opinion that the Royal Family cannot unify the nation if one of their members makes a public relations campaign against the rest of the family and succeeds but if you don't think of the institution of the Royal Family as important then I can understand why you think the way you do.

__________________"One thing we can do is make the choice to view the world in a healthy way. We can choose to see the world as safe with only moments of danger rather than seeing the world as dangerous with only moments of safety."